Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Welcome back. After the gruelling business of reviewing the first games, we arenít exactly
left with much to show ñ a series with an uncertain future, and a protagonist thatís
presumably deceased. After four rollercoaster yearsÖwell, Lara had to take a bit of a break
from the digital world. But the success of the series was hardly going to be ignoredÖeveryone
else wanted their lilí piece of the pie! Lara Croft first appeared outside of games
in 1999, with her own successful series of comicsÖI know absolutely nothing about comics
so I canít exactly tell you much about them, but I know it was just the beginningÖbecause
virtually the second Lara became popular, the whispers started about a Tomb Raider film.
What with the gameís somewhat cinematic nature and big surroundings, how could there not
be a film? And indeed, the wheels were set in motion pretty soonishÖin spite of the
fact that movies based on video games, even at this point, werenít exactly regarded as
a sure-fire winner.
Now youíll forgive me for this, but I rarely get a chance to talk about film at allÖso
youíll forgive me for a little sidetrack ñ a brief history of movies based on video
games up to this point. Itís kind of simple, actually: Absolutely no-one had the slightest
clue what to do. Before Tomb Raider, every video game movie had been an unmitigated flopÖalthough
granted, there hadnít been all that many. Super Mario Bros. is one of the films that
shows one of the main problems ñ just how little there was to work with. Because what
have you got? A plumberís trying to save a princessÖthatís kind of it. Thereís virtually
no characterisation to speak of or anything, meaning that your average filmmakerís flying
without a safety net, ultimately forced toÖwell, basically make *** up. Mario Bros. just about
stretched to a fondly remembered 80ís kid show, but there wasnít anywhere near enough
for a movieÖthe end result is kind of surreal, a couple of hours of people clearly brainstorming,
throwing *** at walls and hoping theyíll please the kidsÖand of course, they didnít.
The various fighting game movies worked perhaps a little better, although not much ñ they
could at least rely on action a bit more, as well as having a few more characters to
choose fromÖStreet Fighter was, in all honesty, perhaps as noble an effort as it could possibly
be, given what they had to work with ñ whether that was a virtually non-existent plot or
an impossibly wooden Jean-Claude Van Damme. The whole thing is impossibly silly, but fun to
watch, at least for a bit. Still, there are only so many fight scenes you can do before
things start to get kind of boring and emptyÖit is, at the least, still remembered for Raul
Juliaís performance as M. BisonÖas hammy as it may be, itís a tour-de-force, a great
actor going way beyond the call of duty, to make the film memorableÖif the stories are
true, pretty much all for the sake of his kid. And hey, as a kid I LOVED Street Fighter,
and I think that was pretty much entirely because of Juliaís performance as Bison.
Vaya con dios, Raul!..and may you rest in peace.
And then, of course, thereís Mortal Kombat. Truth be told, I didnít like this one nearly
as much ñ although nowadays I can say itís a better movie than Street Fighter. Itís
pretty much the same deal, with a wafer-thin plot that simply tries to cram in as many
characters as it possibly can, but it marshals them a bit betterÖthereís nothing thatís
even slightly as memorable as M. Bison, but itís much more balanced ñ and hey, balance
is good for fighting, isnít it? The actionís also a lot better ñ it appealed to martial
arts movie fans and the likeÖit didnít even flop all that hard and even managed to get
a sequel! Even if Mortal Kombat: Annihilation ended up being a total abomination and the
worst movie mentioned so far!...still, not a bad try. But the time for video game movies
hadnít come yet ñ in the end, Hollywood decided to wait a while, for games to become
bigger and more cinematic, so they could be ripped off easier. And in the early 2000ís,
that time came! With a big action resurgence courtesy of films like The Matrix, 2001 and
2002 saw the release of tons more video game movies ñ there was Tomb Raider, Final Fantasy:
Spirits Within, Resident EvilÖum, House of the Dead, and various others to come. They
were a bit more successful at the box office this time around to boot, although the films
were pretty damn far from perfect. And thankfully, the first Tomb Raider movie highlights a whole
bunch of the problems ñ some familiar, some new.
Development of Tomb Raider can be traced back to around 1998 ñ when, in fact, various people
who had already been involved in video game movies tried to get a slice of the pie. Brent
Friedman, co-writer of Mortal Kombat: Annihilation, wrote an unproduced script in 1998. Steven
E. De Souza, director of Street Fighter, also produced an early draft of what would eventually
become the film. In the end though, the film was produced by typical Hollywood types, with
the directorís chair taken by Simon West, the man behind Con Air and The Generalís
DaughterÖyeah, me neither. Of course, the big question on everyoneís lips was who was
going to be Lara Croft? You might have thought of the Lara Croft girls like Rhona Mitra and
what-not, but they were mere rumoursÖDemi Moore was also thought of at one point. But
eventually, the role went to someone who, at the time, was one of Hollywoodís breakthrough
stars ñ Angelina Jolie. Jolie, at this point, had mostly done serious, dramatic roles ñ
there was the cult film Hackers, her head-turning lead role in Gia, and her fantastic, show-stealing
performance in Girl, Interrupted ñ she won an Oscar for it! Sheíd also already earned
something of a reputation asÖwell, odd. Having a literal blood bond with Billy Bob Thornton
will do that to youÖand she wasnít above Hollywood fluff either ñ her first role after
winning Oscar was in the pointless and crap remake of Gone in 60 Seconds, with Nicolas
Cage!...terrible, yes ñ but it made a few bob, and set Jolie up to become huge ñ in
2001, Tomb Raider would be her vehicle!
ÖSo, whatís the plot? UmÖitís something to do with planetary alignment ñ the Illuminati
want to take control of the Triangle of Light, which will, if the two halves are joined together
when all the planets align ñ a 5000-year event thatís scheduled to take place next
Tuesday, give the holder the power of God, to go back and forth through space and timeÖyeah
yeah, insert your Doctor Who jokes here. Lara, lady of Croft manor, unmotivated by the dull
jobs in places like Egypt and what-not, discovers this in the bowels of the mansion ñ her father
originally took on the task of stopping the Illuminati from getting hold of the triangle,
but failedÖand yes, Laraís father is played by Jon Voight, the real-life father of Angelina
Jolie ñ who puts on a not at all bad English accent, although not as good as Jolieís.
And so, thereís your conflict ñ Lara Croft in one corner, and the Illuminati in the other,
represented by a dapper, slicked-back hair Scot named Powell ñ you know heís evil because
he smokes small cigars. We see the world in all itís glory ñ the Illuminati are based
in Venice, one half of the triangleís at Angkor Wat in Cambodia, and the other is in
the darkest depths of SiberiaÖso yes, this movie called Tomb Raider actually does feature
some raiding of tombs in it! Which is something of a step up from most video game movies up
to this point.
The best thing about the movie, by far, is Jolieís performance as Lara Croft ñ itís
not a good movie at all, but sheís certainly putting the effort in, and gets the character
absolutely dead-on! Even if all that means is moving like her, looking like her and making
the appropriate grunts in action scenes ñ many of them virtually identical to those
from the game, I noted. And of course, a lot of British sophistication that thankfully
never feels fakedÖJolieís performance is believable, and even if itís not exactly
the strongest character in the world, itís good enough for what this is ñ basically
your average summer blockbuster fluff piece. Iain Glenís performance as Powell is solid
enough in a ***-of-the-hour type way, but the weak link is, oddly enough, Daniel
CraigÖhe has a role as Alex West, the tomb raider who sides with Powell and is in it
for the moneyÖand he proceeds to put on one of THE absolute worst American accents Iíve
ever heard. He sounds like heís trying to impersonate Mickey Rooney. Let us listenÖum,
yeah. Quite perfectly awful ñ itís quite clear that this talentless moron never went
on to do anything else, ever. The only other film that exists of him is this one where
he gets tortured a lot.
So, where does the movie fall down? As you might expect, the plotís weak and will fall
apart under even the slightest scrutiny, but itís a summer blockbuster AND a video game
movie, so youíd expect that and be generous. Unfortunately, itís just pretty damn awful
as an action movie...you get special effects that havenít aged well at all, repetitive
lazy wire-fu thatís nothing compared to something like, say, Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon,
scenes that are supposed to be suspenseful and puzzling have all the intensity of an
early afternoon gameshowÖand of course, thereís boring references to the video games, and
just boring scenes in general ñ absolutely nothing sticks out compared to what was around
at the time ñ the movieís got nothing compared to, say, The Matrix ñ itís more like an
extended episode of Relic Hunter. This is the frustrating thing about Tomb Raider, because
itís so close and yet so utterly far awayÖthe actionís not offensively horrible, but it
never gets close-in enough, thereís never any suspense, and fatally for a movie like
this, absolutely none of the action is even slightly exciting ñ and if the actionís
a shitshow, then no matter what, the filmís in trouble. You just wish that the movie had
been made by someone like Tony ScottÖyíknow, instead of the British director you call when
Tony Scott isnít available. Simon West wasnít up to snuff, really. I suppose you could point
to Con Air to try and say that he had experience, but then Iíd have to remind you about how
A lot of the lack of suspense does unfortunately come with how perfect Lara is as a character
ñ you never feel as though sheís in much danger, meaning that one of the better things
about the movie ñ her character ñ is sadly one of the things that also cripple it. It
is sort of fun to watch Lara play with all the men in the film, most of whom are clearly
obsessed with her to a dangerous levelÖkeep in mind that Charlieís Angels was released
around this time to boot. Itís not in a boringly sassy way either, itís a bit more playfulÖin
the end, I donít hate the film, but I canít say I like it and I wouldnít repeat the 100
minutes I spent with it. Itís just frustrating because with a better hand behind the cameraÖgah,
it could have been so much better. And with all that said, itís still one of the better
adaptations of a video game out there, which kinda says a lot. Critics at the time panned
it largely for the same reasons as I just did, but the film was still a success, making
around $275 million worldwide. Jolieís performance as Lara was also praised by everyone as the
best thing about the movie, and the box office numbers showed that she could clearly handle
a picture on her ownÖand so, obviously, there was going to be a sequel, toot-suiteÖyeah,
whatever. Obviously Iím going to watch that tooÖletís sit right back down again and
watch Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life, released in 2003! At the very least, we have a better
director ñ Jan de Bont! He directed Speed!...and Speed 2. And the awful remake of The HauntingÖstill,
Speed! I can cling on to that at least, canít I?
Cradle of Lifeís plot isÖwell, pretty much the same thing, only this time itís all about
Pandoraís Box. Thereís no Illuminati or anything like that, just an evil *** who
makes chemical weapons, played by Julius Caesar out of RomeÖso hey, the villainís definitely
got an upgrade ñ Ciaran Hinds is a great actor! Youíll also see Gerard Butler as Laraís
anti-hero companion, a small role for Djimon Hounsou, and returns for Arnold Rimmer and
his somehow nerdier friendÖHindsís character, Jonathan Reiss, wishes to find Pandoraís
Box, sell it, and then let every other idiot open it and release the plague so he can sell
the antidote to whoeverís left alive! Piece of cake, eh? Thatís just about all you need
to know ñ any archaeological details are dispensed in favour of action, action, and
more action! Cradle of Life is a big dumb blockbuster, even more so than the firstÖand
in actual fact, itís kind of all the better for it. Not to say that itís any good, but
I enjoyed it more.
Simple fact is, Jan de Bont is a much better director of action. I never got the feeling
that the guys behind the first film knew what they were doing, but the second at least has
a director with decent ideas when it comes to action sequences. Everything from the one-on-one
fights to the shootouts and the stunts are bigger and better, and they actually make
for some decent, intense scenes! Or at the very least, a bit of eye-candy. Having said
that, you do still get some horrible CGI, and some pretty damn shoddy editing in places
ñ the bit near the end with the Shadow Guardians is kind of embarrassing, actually. And thereís
a bit too much obvious post-production ñ blatant and static green screen shots that
donít belong, or ADR that doesnít even blend in. The ideas arenít bad, but the execution,
the attention to detail and care is lackingÖthatís the more techie stuff anyway. Youíll also
find an entire litany of huge, gaping plot holes, and characterization thatís about
as minimal as drawing a stickman in the margins of your refill padÖso yeah, what the hellís
new? A lot of the action might be poorly done, but Iíd take that over a complete lack of
anything at all.
The highlight is, as usual, Jolie as Croft ñ sheís still good at it, still gets all
the best lines in the movie, and still bounces everyone around like bunnies, forming and
breaking partnerships like sheís Maury freaking Povich. It helps more this time that Jonathan
Reiss is given a bit more body, and is clearly a much more evil villain than Powell from
the first movie ñ I canít say I gave much of a *** about Powellís intentions, whereas
Reiss is clearly evil as all hell ñ a modern day Dr. Mengele, as heís described in the
movie. Jolieís character is somewhat more gung-ho this time around, and some aspects
of her relationship with Sheridan, Butlerís character, are ridiculous, but you canít
help but root for her all the way throughÖand even feel a bit of pathos at the end, when
greed finally gets the better of Sheridan and Lara has to shoot him. Mind you, she gets
over it quickly enough, the two comic relief characters nearly get hooked up in a tribal
ceremony, and after realising this they run for the sunset, all the way back to Not Gay-ville.
Cut and print, everybody!
ÖTo be honest, thereís not a whole lot more left to say ñ this is a big and stupid movie.
I could nitpick my way through the plotholes and the like, or the lack of anything resembling
a decent plot and stuff like that, but it would be missing the point ñ the fact that
they exist at all is something youÖnot necessarily accept, but at least note down ñ they do
still stop the movie from approaching anywhere near half-decent. That and itís somewhat
bloated and overlong ñ a 2-hour stretch when 90 minutes would have suited everyone just
fine ñ I canít help but wonder what on earth the point was of, say, the Chinese gang who
steal the map to Pandoraís Box at the start and then get played by everyone else immediately
after. In the end thoughÖmeh, itís a more entertaining watch than the first film, although
not good at all and certainly not recommended. Both of these films wear thin before theyíre
done, and theyíre not something youíd remember. And it seemed like no-one particularly wanted
a second film either ñ Cradle of Life wasnít a huge flop, but it was a disappointment for
Paramount. There were plans to make a third film, but they were scuppered by Jolie deciding
that she didnít want to don the twin pistols again. Paramount looked for someone to blame
for Cradle of Lifeís failure, and guess who they found? CORE Design!...yep, thatís right.
Weíre going back to GamezvilleÖno, not THAT Gamesville. Cradle of Life was released in
conjunction with an unrelated but entirely new Tomb Raider game! The first for a couple
of years!
Öok, here we go. Tomb Raider: The Angel of Darkness. Obviously Lara was never going to
stay dead ñ youíd have to be stupid if you believed that. In fact, development on it
started while the regular Raider team was working on Chronicles! And of course, it was
going to be on PS2 ñ codenamed Tomb Raider Next Generation, and it was first unveiled
at E3 in 2002, set to be out immediately! Except there wasnít much to show but a few
animations of a next-generation Lara running about. A playable opening level was then showcased
in September by COREís head, Jeremy Heath-SmithÖwho, by all accounts was swearing up a storm as
he desperately tried to get Lara to climb on top of a bin. The alarm bells? They were
ringing ñ every thing that was shown to the public spoke of a game that was far from completion
at best, and at worst was sticking itís head straight down into development hell. Once
Chronicles was finished, the old TR team came over and apparently found that the whole thing
was a mess and had to be started from scratch. Flashy animations were indeed present, as
were endless ideas cribbed from fellow top action games like Metal Gear Solid and Shenmue,
but no-one had given any thought to how the player could actually control the animations,
or how any of these ideas would fit togetherÖAngel of Darkness looked like it was trouble right
from the off. However, it would come to the surface, with the promise that it would be
the first part of a new Lara Croft trilogy! It hit the shelves in June of 2003, a month
or so before the Cradle of Life came out!...and yeah, I think you know whatís all coming
next. Let the bloodletting begin.
Letís do some positives first. Angel of Darkness actually features a bit more plot than what
weíve generally seen in the series so far ñ it kicks off with the death of Von Croy,
and everything pretty much spirals downhill from thereÖof course, itís pretty much like
the movies ñ another artefact that will control the world, another guy that has to be stopped.
Itís all a bit grimmer this time though ñ whereas the first five games were generally
a lot breezier, this is kind of dark. Lara herself gets a great deal more character than
that of ìposh English woman who steals trinketsî, at least ñ and although most of the voice
acting is horrendous beyond belief, Jonell Elliotís performance as Lara isnít bad.
The environs are also miserable enough to have some atmosphere, although they donít
quite have the dirty charm of a PS1 title. But the best thing about the game by far,
that I would recommend above anything else, is the music. Seriously, itís amazing ñ
a Hollywood level score, and by a long distance the best music that the series has ever had.
Even if you donít play the game, you should seek the soundtrack out. But alas, I canít
be that positive becauseÖwell, this is a tragic title. Despite all the delays of over
a year more, it came out rushed, blatantly unfinished, and hideously behind the times.
The controls are the first problem ñ theyíre so irritating to deal with. Lara can now automatically
vault over any railing she comes across ñ in theory, itís not a bad attempt at streamlining
thingsÖin practice, the wrong movement on a narrow walkway will lead to a stupid and
unnecessary death. You have to hold a button to Sprint now, and if you donít then Laraís
pace is so freaking inconsistent ñ she canít decide whether to walk, jog or runÖthis makes
progress PAINFULLY slow at times, and I canít understand why CORE would make this change
at all. The combat has, if anything, gotten worse ñ the cumbersome, tank-like controls
of Lara are now combined with a hand-to-hand combat system that would be bested by your
average point-and-click adventure game. And you also have a terrible camera, or at least
a camera that tends to deviate to Resident Evil-esque ìcinematicî angles, usually at
the most inopportune times. The level design features largely the same puzzles weíve all
seen before, which isnít a major problem ñ but thereís a new, terrible mechanic where
Lara has to level up in order to break down certain doors, or turn certain wheelsÖthis
is ridiculous, and makes no sense. This is Lara Croft weíre talking about, remember?
The queen of the tombs? And all of a sudden, she canít break down a freaking wooden door?
Itís a joke ñ one of the most blatant examples of artificially lengthening a level I have
ever seen. The addition of stealth elements, required by law in every PS2 game made in
2003, is also a disaster ñ the controls are cumbersome, wall-hugging is infuriating, and
the enemies are imbecilic.
And for a PS2 titleÖitís all so disappointing. It feels like a PS1 gameÖLaraís still moving
around on a grid, the animations havenít really changed all that much, and the gameplayís
all the sameÖthis all worked fine back in the late 90ís, but not in 2003. Just look
at the competition ñ Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time was released in 2003. Splinter
Cell came out the year before. There were games like Ratchet and Clank, Beyond Good
and Evil, Jak IIÖthe platform genre was in good health, with many innovative and ground-breaking
titles coming outÖand then thereís this. The queen of the last generation comes along,
haggard and decrepit, peddling a style that everyone had moved on from. Iím not saying
I donít like Tomb Raiderís style of gameplay ñ I wouldnít be doing these videos if I
didnítÖbut you have to move on. You NEED to stick with the timesÖand when you combine
an outdated system with poor execution? Youíve got major problems. This game was just doomed
right from the off ñ you can tell that CORE were simply not able to make it work. They
tried their damnedest with the plot, but it couldnít hide the gameplay. Intriguing elements
such as an occasional sidekick for Lara ñ Kurtis Trent ñ eventually just got sidelined
into a couple of levels when theyíd planned so much more...they stuck all their eggs in
the wrong basket in the beginning, and they never recoveredÖoh yeah, the PC port also
glitches out and crashes frequently, and the PS2 version struggles to reach an even 30
framesÖitís just such a dog of a game, but not one that I take any pleasure in blasting.
The reviews at the time were scathing, as youíd expect, and sales were poor ñ a good
first week before sinking like a stone. Paramount blamed Cradle of Lifeís disappointing box
office receipts squarely on the failure of Angel of Darkness, which seems a trifle unfair
to me. Jeremy Heath-Smith, the wheel behind many of COREís titles, resigned from the
company. Any thoughts of a trilogy using this gameís engine turned into dustÖ2003 truly
was Laraís annus horribilis. By the end of it, there was no more film series, no more
comicsÖand possibly not even a game series. Now the game really DID look like it was upÖ
ÖHowever, EIDOS Interactive, publishers of the series since the beginning, werenít quite
ready to put Lara out to pasture just yet ñ there were still avenues to be explored,
tombs to be raidedÖand obviously money to be made. Still, the failure of Angel of Darkness
meant that Core would have their own series taken away from them ñ they wouldnít get
a chance to rectify their wrongs. Instead, Eidos gave the task of making a new Tomb Raider
game to Crystal Dynamics, an American studio whoíd previously hit big with the Legacy
of Kain series of gamesÖwhen everythingís seemingly in the gutter, itís time for a
reboot. The resulting game, Tomb Raider: Legend, would come out in 2006, with a new engine,
new gameplay, a new story, and a new Lara ñ everything had been redone from scratch.
Core, meanwhile, were sold off to Rebellion Studios ñ Angel of Darkness damn near ended
up killing them. The queen is dead, thenÖlong live the queen. 10 years had passed since
the first Tomb Raider game, and now everything thatís old is new! SoÖwhat would be the
result?...thatís what weíll be looking at in the next part. I know I said I was going
to do Legend in the second vid, but itís way too long! So, join us in Part 3, where
Crystal Dynamics take the helm! We start, of course, with Legend. We then pay tribute
to the roots of the series with Tomb Raider: Anniversary, before heading further into the
dark and murky depths with Underworld, before finally reaching 2013, andÖwell, another
bloody reboot! We started with a game called Tomb Raider, so itís only fitting that we
end with a game called Tomb Raider. Thatís all to come! But for now, itís time to end
the video. Thanks for watching, and wherever you are, whoever you be, have a good one,
take care, and Iíll see you next time!